It always fascinated me that particular behaviors, like herding, can be so ingrained to a particular breed of dog. The dog is no longer in a setting where this is crucial to their survival, yet the urge exists. I do wonder for how many generations the behaviors would last, assuming the dominant genes were not surpressed. That is of course assuming genes are the factor that drives it. It's almost as if environment has little to do with the behavior in this case, other than having opportunity to exhibit the behavior.
Dogs, in the US, are no longer an asset to use as a tool, such as herding, but merely a companion in the vast majority of cases. Agreed they became what they were in order to be useful enough to feed and care for, but different traits may be desired as a pure companion.
Reproduction and evolutionary success in breeding conditions are not the same thing as survival. No breeder kills off dogs with unwanted characteristics, they just don’t breed them.
I learned that when I met such a dog the first time some years ago and the owner told me about this. And I would not bet that it actually is "history" nowadays.
I was flabbergasted when I learned that herding dogs have the instinct to bite behind the legs, even of humans. It is a pressure tactic to make the herded animal go in a certain direction.
To me this is an (unpopular) argument against the tabula rasa theory of humans.
If such a complex behaviour can be congenital, who knows what behaviours are congenital in humans.
Edit: Just to clear, my comment was genuine curiosity, especially as true tabula rasa seems to mean we would lose benefits such as the ability to learn spoken language. The racist/xenophobic comments by a poster below is unscientific nonsense and not what I was trying to introduce.
One reason is because it will forever be an argument against equality by some who feel superior. Because some might believe they have the right to take decisions for others based on their perceived superiority, even if differences are incomprehensively multidimensional and humans who usually think of themselves as superior they lack terribly at other dimensions.
No, more basic than that - if there’s no “tabula rasa” (and people have inborn behavioral traits), then hate groups will use those traits (no matter how poorly proven or unlikely to be found across an entire group) to justify their belief system.
What does this have to do with the discussion mate. I am very aware of cultural differences and incompatibilities, but have you seen the population pyramids of "White people's countries" with a capital W as you wrote it ?
It still requires solving the symbol grounding problem. How does DNA code for the brain's network weights that correspond to things like the definitions [non-prey target], [goal location], [incentive], [coerce] and [back of leg], or some other suitable set of concepts?
I would say from reading the description it doesn't have to do all that, because it sounds like the dog is biting indiscriminately at backs of legs of any reasonable large animal, since it is also biting at the backs of human legs. So I think it doesn't really do any non-prey target reasoning, it just does target size X has back of leg, also I don't know based on description that it does incentive - what is the incentive of biting the back of human legs?
Birds building elaborate nests is something I can't wrap my head around. How do you encode that in DNA, and have a (comparatively tiny) brain execute such complex social behavior?!
Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this. Imagine that we didn't speak the same language, you went for a swim in the ocean and I would go after you and dragged you back to shore while shouting (in my own language) "Oh my, that is so dangerous. Do you even know how many people drown like that? Stop this lunacy at once". Would you describe my behaviour as "herding"? Would you talk about generations, and dominant genes? Or would you just say "this person has some fear for my safety (well grounded or baseless) and seems to care enough about me to save me from the danger he perceives, while I can't convince him that it is fine because we don't speak the same language."
This sort of "herding behavior" isn't just noticeable when you go out to swim, but any time 1+ people are apart from each other. You can spot these dogs extremely easily when you have a bunch of young children playing together, and you can see the family dog paying attention and as soon as one strays away from the group, the dog will start engaging and carefully nudge the stray kid back to the group.
There is no inherent danger in those situations, yet the dogs prefer if everyone was together in a group. If that's not "herding", I might just not understand what herding really is.
What do you describe sounds like herding behaviour, yes. When I say it is not a good description for "this" I mean the behavioural difference between Arthur and Lenny. Maybe you read it as if I don't believe in herding in general? That would be indeed silly on my part.
Gets a face full of water and it stings its nose. Looses footing as it gets deep and doesn't like it. Hears the distant waves roaring and doesn't like it. Sees its human breath differently and move differently and doesn't like it. Looks at its owner and sees them getting small (just a bobbing head on the water) and doesn't like it.
Is that something people think? As far as I remember, I never felt unsafe swimming in any large body of water, give the conditions are alright. Based on my own experience, I would assume people default to thinking bodies of water are not dangerous, but probably depends a lot on the location of your upbringing (which for me was on an island).
This analogy might work in a universe where dogs speak foreign languages in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself. Sounds fun.
> in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself.
Dogs definitely know about the concept of "danger". Roaring fire, a raised stick, or loud noises. These are all things which doesn't cause immediate pain but they react to avoid them. It seems from the story Lenny includes in the things he want to avoid the ocean while Arthur doesn't. That sounds more like an individual difference than a genetic predisposition.
You don't need to speak a foreign language to have this concept.
I don't know what is your definition of "persuasion". If it involves the behaviour of standing in someone's way and bothering them until they turn back then we can agree that Lenny seems to have the concept despite not having a language.
We had an Old English Sheepdog called Bob who let kids climb trees but only up to a certain height. If you went higher Bob grabbed your ankle and gently pulled you back to the height he previously "let you". Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted to do on the tree and he didn't care. Otherwise never herded anyone ever.
My point is not the language. More that if a chinese coast guard would drag you out of the sea you wouldn't be saying "yeah the chinese have a strong herding reflex". You would say "this person doesn't want me to swim", or "this person thinks I'm in danger and I can't communicate that I'm not".
The behavior you're describing is instinctual. Difficult to relate to because we only see tiny remnants of instinctual behavior in humans. But I'd venture to guess that acting on instinct does not require any understanding of abstract concepts (or indeed the language in which such concepts would exist).
I'm not dismissing herding behaviour. It is a thing. But genetics is simply not a good explanation for the story here. Here we have two dogs of the same breed (Arthur and Lenny). One lets their owner swim freely the other doesn't. The difference here is not genetics (they are the same berad), this in my opinion is a personality difference between the two dogs.
Which is why I'm starting my comment with "Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this." Calling it "herding behaviour" doesn't explain the difference between the two labradors.
> Peak HN arrogance.
So lovely. Would you say that to my face closewith? I was nothing but polite to you and everyone else. I'm a human here you know. Can you treat me like one?
It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine behavioural heredity. It is astonishingly presumptuous. And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.
> It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine heredity.
I do not claim any such thing. Simply that the difference in behaviour between two dogs of the same breed cannot be explained with genetics. Lenny and Arthur share a genetic background. They do not share the behaviour. There is some other difference between Lenny and Arthur (or between the two swimmers!) which drives the difference in the observed behaviours.
I'm not saying genetics is not a thing. It is simply not the right lens to inspect this situation here.
> And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.
Which I'm not making. In any of my comments. So we are good then. :)
Lovely article. Worth mentioning that Labradors are descended from now extinct water dogs in Canada, but are technically British and were originally gun dogs. Of course they're incredible pets too.
Here in Scotland, I regularly meet a local gamekeeper who takes his 6 or 7 Labradors out for a walk - working dogs and extremely well behaved (unlike my unruly Samoyed!).
I still miss our black lab, Shambles, died at 13 of cancer during Christmas lockdown in 2020. He also shepherded me back to dry land when we swam together - which was probably sensible as I'm a terrible swimmer.
Sorry to hear about Shambles. We have a black lab named Mars who just turned 8 and it's bittersweet watching him age. He's such a great dog, I'd never had a lab before him but he's made me fall in love with the breed.
I'm up and down this thread because I love labs. I want to comment that the lab breed is potent. All the things you love about them can be found in a mix too. We've got an almost 10 year old mix, hes a sneaky fucker but we love him dearly.
Wait that's an excellent idea! We've had 'real dolls' for decades, and these same methods could be applied to the ascetics of a dog android. And canine behaviour is more easily modeled, more easily mimicked, we could throw a very simple AI in there. No highly dexterous hands to concern one with either.
This is the perfect way to start on human androids. Cut our teeth on this, perfect this, then use the same knowledge to build humanform robots. The patents we'll accrue make it worth it on its own!
Best part is you wouldn't NEED to take them for a walk. No need to clean up their leavings. And if you wanted that part of the experience, it could be fertilizer, clean, specifically designed to help the local plants. We could make a mint selling it, plus, we'd ensure no pesky odour.
Or even better, what the dog simulates as leavings, could be bird food or some such! Each packaged drop, would feed the local pigeons, self-cleanup!
And dog treats! We'd have them beg for treats, but their innards will only accept treats made, and licensed specifically for the dog. In fact, without our specific dog food, the animal will "wither" and die!
We'll make a killing!
Johnson, get the design team in here pronto!
(Applies to YC, 12 months later 'mieses' sees such creations in Walmart)
NOTE: the above was a Google project, but once it hit the shelves, and with record breaking sales, Google cancelled it for inexplicable reasons.
interesting and funny. But I do not agree with your premise that it is easier to make an successful AI dog than a successful AI human.
Humans pay more attention to their dogs than to humans, for obvious reasons.
We would not mind a human that acted like an AI - the artificiality simplifies the relationship and is a positive feature. With dogs, we notice the slightest detail and would be bothered by AI limitations. We might act the same way towards music and art. We would spend hours listening to an album or looking at a painting while trying our best to ignore the people around us. The posters that describe the dog "experience" in a simple mechanistic way have probably never owned a dog.
Another way of looking at it - we have to deal with humans. We choose to deal with a dog. Therefore the dog AI has more to live up to.
The second paragraph begins with, “Though not a dog lover,” but then the author proceeds to write an entire article about dogs which culminates with a story about how he goes swimming in the sea with his dog. I suppose it’s a story about how Labradors convinced him to become a dog lover.
Can confirm that dogs in water will scrab you with their claws.
Lovely piece and comforting to read. And having swam in the Irish sea with dogs brought me back memory of being freezing wet, with dog scrapes and the smell of them after.
I'd manually roll mine on the dry sand to try dry them, or on the walk back through the spiky beach grass you'd have wet dog body press against your leg as you're moving too slowly silly human, but their fur was just too sopping wet for it to work.
I have labs, and they seem to have perfected the art of begging. Not too pushy (no barking), not too subtle. Just you know, when you're eating or moving towards food, it somehow crosses your mind that maybe the dog should have something. Always happy to do the one trick that gets them food, which is sitting on their hind legs.
I can see how this evolved. You sit near the humans, don't act aggressive, they give you food. You make puppies that follow the same plan. You give up the dead end profession of providing security. The parcel guy might also give you food, you never know!
What I don't get is how their other instinct evolved: "I must bring this tennis ball to master, and master must fulfill the social contract of launching it"
Sure, I can see how hunting for stuff makes you want to run over to something and pick it up. But what about the "throw the item 40m so I can run after it?" Why would that have a purpose? Why is the appetite for doing this insatiable, to the point where you are advised not to do it with small puppies who might hurt their hip development? Is it all just an extension of the juvenile stage, where play is important?
Labs have also become the dominant breed of dog through exceptional salesmanship. I bred my lab, and she had eight puppies. We advertised them, and not a single one of the families that came to see one decided against it. The mom would bring a puppy to the family, and as soon as they were holding a puppy, you could tell by the look in their eyes that they were sold. It's like she was saying "Hey, you look like nice people, buy my kid! He'll love you forever".
The puppies at that stage are already able to look deep in your eyes, and can already do the "oh hey, that's some interesting food you got there" look, and they already love a belly rub.
> But what about the "throw the item 40m so I can run after it?" Why would that have a purpose? Why is the appetite for doing this insatiable, to the point where you are advised not to do it with small puppies who might hurt their hip development?
A combination of chase instinct (when going forward) and resource guarding (when grabbing it and running back). Note that some dogs would do that, but skip the part where they return the toy back to the owner and just spend some quality one on one time with their prey.
My dad would go fishing on the beach with his formula 1 labrador. While my dad was in the water fishing, the dog would swim around him in circles. It could swim for an hour without break. It was very cute and impressive, but of course it would also scare the fish away. The dog would also be quite curious about the seals, but I've never seen them play like in the article. A lovely dog, but they have an uncontrollable appetite which can be pretty annoying.
Labs are so obscenely food motivated it's a mystery why the owner couldn't train Lenny to just follow them for a few bits of kibble. It's not like they're shepherds in the first place, so herding drive can't be that strong (unless it's a mix).
There’s two strains of Labrador, often called the British and the American. Then British are the traditional goofy food-obsessed family dogs. The American are more working dogs - much more energetic than their British counterparts and less motivated by food than the opportunity to catch a ball.
I don't really know what you mean, American labs don't have any sort of genetics that tells them to stop eating. If they were in a room filled with food they would eat it all, only taking breaks to sleep. I have a lab mix and he shamelessly steals food from our young kids and off the kitchen counter as we eat in the very visible room next to it. He's eaten whole loaves of bread (multiple times), an entire pound of deep fried egg rolls, trays of cookies on and on and on. He's a good boy though.
Also reminded - we had neighbors with 2 cats, an experienced and cynical large red one and a naive curious tabby. They spent a lot of time outdoor wandering around, and the tabby was always trying to get everywhere, very friendly, and the red one was always very suspicious about everything and very worried and watchful over the tabby. Unfortunately the tabby got killed by a car. The neighbors after some time took another cat. The red one never let the new cat to leave their patio. Getting to sit on the patio fence was the maximum she would let him, and on any attempt to get down outside of the fence she would firmly herd him back.
It always fascinated me that particular behaviors, like herding, can be so ingrained to a particular breed of dog. The dog is no longer in a setting where this is crucial to their survival, yet the urge exists. I do wonder for how many generations the behaviors would last, assuming the dominant genes were not surpressed. That is of course assuming genes are the factor that drives it. It's almost as if environment has little to do with the behavior in this case, other than having opportunity to exhibit the behavior.
> The dog is no longer in a setting where this is crucial to their survival
It is crucial to their survival. That's how they made it to this day in these numbers.
Dogs, in the US, are no longer an asset to use as a tool, such as herding, but merely a companion in the vast majority of cases. Agreed they became what they were in order to be useful enough to feed and care for, but different traits may be desired as a pure companion.
Reproduction and evolutionary success in breeding conditions are not the same thing as survival. No breeder kills off dogs with unwanted characteristics, they just don’t breed them.
> No breeder kills dogs […]
I sadly have to disagree as history tells us a different story, e.g.
"Back in the day, puppies without a ridge were either euthanized or culled at birth." https://healthyhomemadedogtreats.com/ridgeless-rhodesian-rid...
I learned that when I met such a dog the first time some years ago and the owner told me about this. And I would not bet that it actually is "history" nowadays.
Evolutionary success is survival for genes.
Yes they do. Farmers will kill dogs who attack/bite sheep & cattle without much hesitation.
I was flabbergasted when I learned that herding dogs have the instinct to bite behind the legs, even of humans. It is a pressure tactic to make the herded animal go in a certain direction.
To me this is an (unpopular) argument against the tabula rasa theory of humans.
If such a complex behaviour can be congenital, who knows what behaviours are congenital in humans.
Tabula rasa theory is not close to plausible with the scientific evidence we have, unfortunately.
Why is that unfortunate?
Edit: Just to clear, my comment was genuine curiosity, especially as true tabula rasa seems to mean we would lose benefits such as the ability to learn spoken language. The racist/xenophobic comments by a poster below is unscientific nonsense and not what I was trying to introduce.
They probably think it would be nice if people weren't born with negative behavioral pre-dispositions
One reason is because it will forever be an argument against equality by some who feel superior. Because some might believe they have the right to take decisions for others based on their perceived superiority, even if differences are incomprehensively multidimensional and humans who usually think of themselves as superior they lack terribly at other dimensions.
What kind of equality? Before the law, opportunity or outcome?
No, more basic than that - if there’s no “tabula rasa” (and people have inborn behavioral traits), then hate groups will use those traits (no matter how poorly proven or unlikely to be found across an entire group) to justify their belief system.
Not even as far as that, the type of equality to not gas the jews or to not eradicate palestineans, or to not lynch black people.
[flagged]
What does this have to do with the discussion mate. I am very aware of cultural differences and incompatibilities, but have you seen the population pyramids of "White people's countries" with a capital W as you wrote it ?
bite behind leg doesn't sound so complex.
bite behind leg if multiple animals going towards X but animal A goes towards Y and biting will make A go towards X would be complex.
bite behind leg is simple and crude and by placing dog in right context produces complex and useful results.
It still requires solving the symbol grounding problem. How does DNA code for the brain's network weights that correspond to things like the definitions [non-prey target], [goal location], [incentive], [coerce] and [back of leg], or some other suitable set of concepts?
I would say from reading the description it doesn't have to do all that, because it sounds like the dog is biting indiscriminately at backs of legs of any reasonable large animal, since it is also biting at the backs of human legs. So I think it doesn't really do any non-prey target reasoning, it just does target size X has back of leg, also I don't know based on description that it does incentive - what is the incentive of biting the back of human legs?
Birds building elaborate nests is something I can't wrap my head around. How do you encode that in DNA, and have a (comparatively tiny) brain execute such complex social behavior?!
There are insects with much much smaller brains than birds, that also exhibit quite complex nest building behavior.
To me it sounds complex enough to bite behind the leg, not leg in general, and not the leg of a chair for example.
I do not think a dog has to solve partial differential equations for me to be impressed and think that complex behaviours can be innate.
Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this. Imagine that we didn't speak the same language, you went for a swim in the ocean and I would go after you and dragged you back to shore while shouting (in my own language) "Oh my, that is so dangerous. Do you even know how many people drown like that? Stop this lunacy at once". Would you describe my behaviour as "herding"? Would you talk about generations, and dominant genes? Or would you just say "this person has some fear for my safety (well grounded or baseless) and seems to care enough about me to save me from the danger he perceives, while I can't convince him that it is fine because we don't speak the same language."
This sort of "herding behavior" isn't just noticeable when you go out to swim, but any time 1+ people are apart from each other. You can spot these dogs extremely easily when you have a bunch of young children playing together, and you can see the family dog paying attention and as soon as one strays away from the group, the dog will start engaging and carefully nudge the stray kid back to the group.
There is no inherent danger in those situations, yet the dogs prefer if everyone was together in a group. If that's not "herding", I might just not understand what herding really is.
What do you describe sounds like herding behaviour, yes. When I say it is not a good description for "this" I mean the behavioural difference between Arthur and Lenny. Maybe you read it as if I don't believe in herding in general? That would be indeed silly on my part.
How does the dog infer that swimming in an ocean is dangerous?
Gets a face full of water and it stings its nose. Looses footing as it gets deep and doesn't like it. Hears the distant waves roaring and doesn't like it. Sees its human breath differently and move differently and doesn't like it. Looks at its owner and sees them getting small (just a bobbing head on the water) and doesn't like it.
Can be so many things.
How do you infer swimming in an ocean is dangerous?
Is that something people think? As far as I remember, I never felt unsafe swimming in any large body of water, give the conditions are alright. Based on my own experience, I would assume people default to thinking bodies of water are not dangerous, but probably depends a lot on the location of your upbringing (which for me was on an island).
You don't know anyone who drowned?
No, is that common where you're from?
This analogy might work in a universe where dogs speak foreign languages in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself. Sounds fun.
> in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself.
Dogs definitely know about the concept of "danger". Roaring fire, a raised stick, or loud noises. These are all things which doesn't cause immediate pain but they react to avoid them. It seems from the story Lenny includes in the things he want to avoid the ocean while Arthur doesn't. That sounds more like an individual difference than a genetic predisposition.
You don't need to speak a foreign language to have this concept.
I don't know what is your definition of "persuasion". If it involves the behaviour of standing in someone's way and bothering them until they turn back then we can agree that Lenny seems to have the concept despite not having a language.
We had an Old English Sheepdog called Bob who let kids climb trees but only up to a certain height. If you went higher Bob grabbed your ankle and gently pulled you back to the height he previously "let you". Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted to do on the tree and he didn't care. Otherwise never herded anyone ever.
My point is not the language. More that if a chinese coast guard would drag you out of the sea you wouldn't be saying "yeah the chinese have a strong herding reflex". You would say "this person doesn't want me to swim", or "this person thinks I'm in danger and I can't communicate that I'm not".
The behavior you're describing is instinctual. Difficult to relate to because we only see tiny remnants of instinctual behavior in humans. But I'd venture to guess that acting on instinct does not require any understanding of abstract concepts (or indeed the language in which such concepts would exist).
Herding behaviour is so distinctive and so apparent in certain breeds that it's nonsense to dismiss like this. Peak HN arrogance.
> it's nonsense to dismiss like this
I'm not dismissing herding behaviour. It is a thing. But genetics is simply not a good explanation for the story here. Here we have two dogs of the same breed (Arthur and Lenny). One lets their owner swim freely the other doesn't. The difference here is not genetics (they are the same berad), this in my opinion is a personality difference between the two dogs.
Which is why I'm starting my comment with "Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this." Calling it "herding behaviour" doesn't explain the difference between the two labradors.
> Peak HN arrogance.
So lovely. Would you say that to my face closewith? I was nothing but polite to you and everyone else. I'm a human here you know. Can you treat me like one?
It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine behavioural heredity. It is astonishingly presumptuous. And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.
> It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine heredity.
I do not claim any such thing. Simply that the difference in behaviour between two dogs of the same breed cannot be explained with genetics. Lenny and Arthur share a genetic background. They do not share the behaviour. There is some other difference between Lenny and Arthur (or between the two swimmers!) which drives the difference in the observed behaviours.
I'm not saying genetics is not a thing. It is simply not the right lens to inspect this situation here.
> And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.
Which I'm not making. In any of my comments. So we are good then. :)
Lovely article. Worth mentioning that Labradors are descended from now extinct water dogs in Canada, but are technically British and were originally gun dogs. Of course they're incredible pets too.
Here in Scotland, I regularly meet a local gamekeeper who takes his 6 or 7 Labradors out for a walk - working dogs and extremely well behaved (unlike my unruly Samoyed!).
I still miss our black lab, Shambles, died at 13 of cancer during Christmas lockdown in 2020. He also shepherded me back to dry land when we swam together - which was probably sensible as I'm a terrible swimmer.
Sorry to hear about Shambles. We have a black lab named Mars who just turned 8 and it's bittersweet watching him age. He's such a great dog, I'd never had a lab before him but he's made me fall in love with the breed.
I'm up and down this thread because I love labs. I want to comment that the lab breed is potent. All the things you love about them can be found in a mix too. We've got an almost 10 year old mix, hes a sneaky fucker but we love him dearly.
Good boy Shambles.
I feel like I'm having a stroke trying to read this title
Stroking a Labrador is one of life’s few pleasures.
I thought I was the only one noticing a very odd way to express something.
Perfectly cromulent.
The old man the boat
Can't believe this is the first time I come across this gem.
A worthy contender to "Eats shoots and leaves".
Surely you're familiar with Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, however.
Me too. but the essay is pretty good. there will be AI copies of humans but never of dogs.
Wait that's an excellent idea! We've had 'real dolls' for decades, and these same methods could be applied to the ascetics of a dog android. And canine behaviour is more easily modeled, more easily mimicked, we could throw a very simple AI in there. No highly dexterous hands to concern one with either.
This is the perfect way to start on human androids. Cut our teeth on this, perfect this, then use the same knowledge to build humanform robots. The patents we'll accrue make it worth it on its own!
Best part is you wouldn't NEED to take them for a walk. No need to clean up their leavings. And if you wanted that part of the experience, it could be fertilizer, clean, specifically designed to help the local plants. We could make a mint selling it, plus, we'd ensure no pesky odour.
Or even better, what the dog simulates as leavings, could be bird food or some such! Each packaged drop, would feed the local pigeons, self-cleanup!
And dog treats! We'd have them beg for treats, but their innards will only accept treats made, and licensed specifically for the dog. In fact, without our specific dog food, the animal will "wither" and die!
We'll make a killing!
Johnson, get the design team in here pronto!
(Applies to YC, 12 months later 'mieses' sees such creations in Walmart)
NOTE: the above was a Google project, but once it hit the shelves, and with record breaking sales, Google cancelled it for inexplicable reasons.
It’s brilliant. Instant benefits from the reward of a strong emotional bond, without ever toiling through the journey of forging one!
interesting and funny. But I do not agree with your premise that it is easier to make an successful AI dog than a successful AI human.
Humans pay more attention to their dogs than to humans, for obvious reasons.
We would not mind a human that acted like an AI - the artificiality simplifies the relationship and is a positive feature. With dogs, we notice the slightest detail and would be bothered by AI limitations. We might act the same way towards music and art. We would spend hours listening to an album or looking at a painting while trying our best to ignore the people around us. The posters that describe the dog "experience" in a simple mechanistic way have probably never owned a dog.
Another way of looking at it - we have to deal with humans. We choose to deal with a dog. Therefore the dog AI has more to live up to.
Boston Dynamics would like a word.
Not the AIBO team at Sony?
The second paragraph begins with, “Though not a dog lover,” but then the author proceeds to write an entire article about dogs which culminates with a story about how he goes swimming in the sea with his dog. I suppose it’s a story about how Labradors convinced him to become a dog lover.
Can confirm that dogs in water will scrab you with their claws.
Lovely piece and comforting to read. And having swam in the Irish sea with dogs brought me back memory of being freezing wet, with dog scrapes and the smell of them after.
I'd manually roll mine on the dry sand to try dry them, or on the walk back through the spiky beach grass you'd have wet dog body press against your leg as you're moving too slowly silly human, but their fur was just too sopping wet for it to work.
I have labs, and they seem to have perfected the art of begging. Not too pushy (no barking), not too subtle. Just you know, when you're eating or moving towards food, it somehow crosses your mind that maybe the dog should have something. Always happy to do the one trick that gets them food, which is sitting on their hind legs.
I can see how this evolved. You sit near the humans, don't act aggressive, they give you food. You make puppies that follow the same plan. You give up the dead end profession of providing security. The parcel guy might also give you food, you never know!
What I don't get is how their other instinct evolved: "I must bring this tennis ball to master, and master must fulfill the social contract of launching it"
Sure, I can see how hunting for stuff makes you want to run over to something and pick it up. But what about the "throw the item 40m so I can run after it?" Why would that have a purpose? Why is the appetite for doing this insatiable, to the point where you are advised not to do it with small puppies who might hurt their hip development? Is it all just an extension of the juvenile stage, where play is important?
Labs have also become the dominant breed of dog through exceptional salesmanship. I bred my lab, and she had eight puppies. We advertised them, and not a single one of the families that came to see one decided against it. The mom would bring a puppy to the family, and as soon as they were holding a puppy, you could tell by the look in their eyes that they were sold. It's like she was saying "Hey, you look like nice people, buy my kid! He'll love you forever".
The puppies at that stage are already able to look deep in your eyes, and can already do the "oh hey, that's some interesting food you got there" look, and they already love a belly rub.
> But what about the "throw the item 40m so I can run after it?" Why would that have a purpose? Why is the appetite for doing this insatiable, to the point where you are advised not to do it with small puppies who might hurt their hip development?
A combination of chase instinct (when going forward) and resource guarding (when grabbing it and running back). Note that some dogs would do that, but skip the part where they return the toy back to the owner and just spend some quality one on one time with their prey.
[dead]
My dad would go fishing on the beach with his formula 1 labrador. While my dad was in the water fishing, the dog would swim around him in circles. It could swim for an hour without break. It was very cute and impressive, but of course it would also scare the fish away. The dog would also be quite curious about the seals, but I've never seen them play like in the article. A lovely dog, but they have an uncontrollable appetite which can be pretty annoying.
Labs are so obscenely food motivated it's a mystery why the owner couldn't train Lenny to just follow them for a few bits of kibble. It's not like they're shepherds in the first place, so herding drive can't be that strong (unless it's a mix).
There’s two strains of Labrador, often called the British and the American. Then British are the traditional goofy food-obsessed family dogs. The American are more working dogs - much more energetic than their British counterparts and less motivated by food than the opportunity to catch a ball.
I don't really know what you mean, American labs don't have any sort of genetics that tells them to stop eating. If they were in a room filled with food they would eat it all, only taking breaks to sleep. I have a lab mix and he shamelessly steals food from our young kids and off the kitchen counter as we eat in the very visible room next to it. He's eaten whole loaves of bread (multiple times), an entire pound of deep fried egg rolls, trays of cookies on and on and on. He's a good boy though.
Such a personal and humble kind of writing that is so rare these days. Beautiful.
Beautiful
Herding skills, sheepdogs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjc502ALOM
Also reminded - we had neighbors with 2 cats, an experienced and cynical large red one and a naive curious tabby. They spent a lot of time outdoor wandering around, and the tabby was always trying to get everywhere, very friendly, and the red one was always very suspicious about everything and very worried and watchful over the tabby. Unfortunately the tabby got killed by a car. The neighbors after some time took another cat. The red one never let the new cat to leave their patio. Getting to sit on the patio fence was the maximum she would let him, and on any attempt to get down outside of the fence she would firmly herd him back.
And not only ducks https://youtu.be/y07at1bU89Q?feature=shared